SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF SAMUEL RUTHERFORD.
THE more prominent features of a man's public life are generally
characterised by the spirit of the times in which he lived. If the
period has been peaceful and undisturbed by party controversy and the
disputes of opposing factions, then all flows smoothly and quietly on;
the minds of the people repose unharassed and unexcited by public
contentions and quarrels; there is opportunity for the cultivation of
the useful arts; a taste is displayed in the pursuit of learning and
literature, and improvements and discoveries, in every branch of science
and art, advance with rapid strides. Such a state of things men of
civilized nations in general desire. Yet a period like this, when there
has been “peace in the land,” looked back upon from a succeeding age, or
read as a chapter of history, appears tame and monotonous. There is
nothing to arouse the attention or awaken the feelings, when the only
record we have of a man is, that he lived, died, and was buried. But it
is otherwise when the times have been the scene of anarchy, civil war,
or persecution. Then the calmness and repose of the community is broken
up; men are excited and roused by the spirit-stirring events that are
passing around them; each must take their side; — it is then that their
characters are drawn out and shown in a true light: the weak; the timid
and undecided, keep the back ground, while men of courage and daring
stand forward in bold relief.
There has been in the history of mankind, in all ages, two great
contending principles at issue — the contest of error against truth, and
the struggle of truth with error. On the one side — error, with the
violence of oppression, doing all that persecution can accomplish, in
endeavouring to exterminate virtue from the moral universe; and on the
other — truth, with noble courage and exalted firmness, maintaining the
purity of her principles in opposition to ignorance and persecution. For
upwards of four thousand years she has grappled with superstition,
idolatry, and bigotry, and, with moral weapons, she has vindicated the
justice of her principles, which her enemies have found easier to answer
with the sword than by argument. In every age error has had the
majority, for truth has had few followers; but, in the end, she has been
triumphant even at the stake, or on the scaffold. Yet the faggot will
burn with a fiercer flame, and the guillotine will be deeper dyed with
the martyr's blood than it has ever yet been, ere the world assent to
the truth of her doctrines. On looking back, and reviewing the civil and
religious history of our own land, we observe the mighty contest between
Popery and the Reformed Doctrine — we see the fearful conflict of right
and wrong — and we see truth, with a gigantic effort, burst the fetters
which had so long held the people in mental bondage and ignorance.
Again, we observe the struggles between Presbytery and Episcopacy,
during most of the latter half of the seventeenth century; one party
urged on by a spine of opposition and bigotry, to trample on the
religious rights and privileges of the people, and doing all in their
power to bring them again under the iron sway of the Church of Rome; the
other, with moral courage and firmness, standing boldly forward, in the
front of persecution, tyranny, and oppression, for the cause and
promotion of true religion; and from the martyrdom of Hamilton,
Scotland's first martyr, many a noble spirit has been immolated and set
free, for the cause, and at the shrine of Truth; —
“Yet few remember them. They lived unknown Till persecution dragg'd
them into fame, And chased them up to heaven.”
SAMUEL RUTHERFORD was born in the parish of Nisbet, in Roxburghshire, in
the year 1600. Of the sphere in life occupied by his parents, we have no
means of correctly ascertaining. He is mentioned by Reid “to have been
born of respectable parents,”[1] and Wodrow states that he came of
“mean, but honest parents.” It is probable, however, that his father was
engaged in agricultural pursuits; at all events, he must have held a
respectable rank in society, as he otherwise could not have given his
son so superior an education. At an early period of his life he
discovered a precocious talent, and his parents consequently destined
him for the ministry.
In 1617 he was sent to Edinburgh, and entered the University as a
student, where he appears to have excelled in the studies in which he
was engaged, for, in four years, he took his degree of Master of Arts;
and in 1623, after a severe contest with three competitors, he was
elected one of the Regents of the College. The acquirements he displayed
at this early period were justly appreciated by his contemporaries. We
are told that “the whole Regents, out of their particular knowledge of
Mr Samuel Rutherford, demonstrated to them [the Judges] his eminent
abilities of mind and virtuous dispositions, wherewith the Judges, being
satisfied, declared him successor in the Professor of Humanity.”[2] He,
however, only acted in the capacity of Regent about two years, and, on
leaving his charge, he devoted himself to the study of Theology, under
Mr Andrew Ramsay.
The Church of Scotland was at this period almost entirely under the
jurisdiction of Episcopal bishops. The establishment of Episcopacy had
been gradually going on since the accession of James to the throne of
England, who lent all his aid and authority to the furtherance of that
end. The Presbyterians who would not conform to the discipline of church
government which had been obtruded upon them, were cruelly oppressed.
Many were imprisoned, and their goods confiscated; others were banished
from their native land ; and not a few were dragged to the scaffold or
the stake. At the death of King James, in 1625, his son Charles
succeeded to the throne, and the people hoped that their grievances
would now be listened to, and their wrongs redressed; but they were
disappointed. “The father's madness,” says Stevenson, “laid the
foundation for his successor's woes, and the son exactly followed the
father's steps.”[3] James held the principles of a royal prerogative,
and required absolute and implicit obedience in too strict a manner.
These he instilled into the mind of his son, and was, unhappily, too
successful; for, on Charles' succession, he carried out the same
principles to a most intolerant degree, which was the cause of so much
anarchy and confusion in the nation, and entailed upon himself those
misfortunes which rendered his reign so unhappy, and his end so
miserable.
In 1627, Rutherford was licensed as a preacher of the Gospel, and
through the influence of John Gordon of Kenmure, (afterwards Viscount
Kenmure,) appointed to a church in the parish of Anwoth, in
Kirkcudbright. There is sufficient authority to show that he was not
inducted by Episcopal ordination. Being firmly attached to the
Presbyterian form of Government from his youth, he manifested great
dislike to Prelacy, and could never be induced to stoop to the authority
of the bishops, which, at that time, was a very difficult matter to
evade. We are told by Stevenson, that “until the beginning of the year
1628, some few preachers, by influence, were suffered to enter the
ministry without conformity, and in this number we suppose Mr Rutherford
may be reckoned, because he was ordained before the doors came to be
more closely shut upon honest preachers.” Other authorities might be
quoted to the same effect. Here he discharged the duties of his sacred
calling with great diligence; and, no doubt, with success. He was
accustomed to rise so early as three o'clock in the morning and devoted
his whole time to the spiritual wants of his flock and his own private
religious duties. His labours were not confined to his own parishioners,
many persons resorted to him from surrounding parishes. “He was,” says
Livingston, “a great strengthener of all the Christians in that country,
who had been the fruits of the ministry of Mr John Welsh, the time he
had been at Kirkcudbright.”
In 1630, Rutherford experienced a severe affliction by the death of his
wife, after a painful and protracted illness of thirteen months,
scarcely five years after their marriage. Her death seems to have been
the source of much sorrow to him, as he frequently takes notice of it in
his letters with much feeling, long after his painful bereavement. To
add to his distress, he was himself afflicted with a fever, which lasted
upwards of three months, by which he was so much reduced, that it was
long ere he was able to perform his sacred duties.
John Gordon, Viscount Kenmure, who had long been the friend and patron
of Rutherford, for whom he entertained the greatest respect and esteem,
was in August 1634, seized with a disease which caused his death on
September following, to the deep sorrow of Rutherford, who was with him
at his last moments. Kenmure was a nobleman of an amiable and pious
disposition; and, as may be supposed, experienced much pleasure in his
intercourse with Rutherford. To Lady Kenmure, Rutherford wrote many of
his famous “Letters.”
About this time, the doctrines of Arminius began to spread to an
alarming extant amongst the Episcopalians, His tenets were espoused by
Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, and also by many of the Scottish
prelates, headed by Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, as those only who held the
same principles had any chance of preferment in the Church. Rutherford
viewed the promulgation of these dangerous tenets with great anxiety,
and did all in his power to controvert and oppose them. In 1636,
appeared his learned treatise, entitled, “Exercitationes Apologeticæ pro
Divina Gratia, which was dedicated to Viscount Kenmure, but was not
published till eighteen months after his death. This work gave great
offence to the government: he was in consequence summoned to appear
before a High Commission Court, which had been constituted by Thomas
Sydserff, Bishop of Galloway, a man of Arminian principles, which met at
Wigton in June (1636), and there deprived of his office. Sydserff, who
had imbibed an inveterate hatred against him, was not satisfied with
this, but had him again summoned before the High Commission Court at
Edinburgh, which met in July following, and he was there accused “of
non-conformity, for preaching against the Perth Articles, and for
writing a book, entitled, Exercitationes Apologiticæ pro Divina Gratia,
which they alleged did reflect upon the Church of Scotland; but the
truth was, the arguments in that book did cut the sinews of Arminianism,
and galled the Episcopal clergy to the quick, and therefore Bishop
Lydserff could no longer abide him.” Here many other false, frivolous,
and extravagant charges were brought against him, but being firm in his
innocence, he repelled them all. Lord Lorn (brother to Lady Kenmure),
and many others, endeavoured to befriend him; but such was the
malevolence of Sydserff, that he swore an oath, if they did not agree to
his wishes, he would write to the king. After three days' trial,
sentence was passed upon him, that he be deprived of his pastoral
office, and discharged from preaching in any part of Scotland, under
pain of rebellion, and to be confined before the 20th of August 1636,
within the town of Aberdeen during the king's pleasure. This sentence he
obeyed, but severe and unjust as it was, it did not discourage him, for
in one of his letters, he says, “I go to my king's palace at Aberdeen;
tongue, pen, nor wit, cannot express my joy.”
During his confinement in Aberdeen, he wrote many of his well-known
“Letters,” which have been so popular. Indeed, there are few cottage
libraries in Scotland in which they do not find a place among the scanty
but select collection. Episcopacy and Arminianism at this time held the
sole sway in Aberdeen, and it was with no gracious feeling that the
learned doctors beheld the arrival of Rutherford. They had all imbibed
the principles of their great patron, Laud, and manifested great
hostility to Presbyterianism, which was the principal cause of his being
sent to that town. He met at first with a cold reception, and his
opponents did all in their power to operate on the minds of the people
against him.
He says himself; that “the people thought him a strange man, and his
cause not good.” His innocency, however, and the truth of his cause,
began at last to be known, and his popularity was spreading daily; —
which so much alarmed the doctors, that they wished he might be banished
from the kingdom. They entered into several disputations with him, but
he appears to have proved himself a match tor them. “I am here
troubled,” says he, “with the disputes of the great doctors, (especially
with Dr Barron, on ceremonial and Arminian controversies — for all are
corrupt here,) but, I thank God, with no detriment to the truth, or
discredit to my profession.”
About this period, great confusion and commotion reigned in Scotland. It
had long been the wish of King Charles to introduce the Church of
England Service-book and Canons into the worship of the Presbyterians of
Scotland. He accordingly, in April 1636, with ill-judged policy,
commenced arrangements for its accomplishment, and gave commands to
Archbishop Laud, Bishops Juxon and Wren, to compile a liturgy for the
special use of the Church of Scotland. Consequently, one was soon
framed, which was nearly similar to that used in the Church of England,
excepting a few alterations; and, wherever these occurred, the language
was almost synonimous [sic] with the Roman Missal. In 1637, a
proclamation was issued, commanding the people's strict observance of
this new form of worship, and a day was accordingly fixed for its
introduction into Edinburgh, — on which it was presumed that compliance
would follow throughout all the land. The feelings of the people, as may
be supposed, were roused to a high pitch; — they stood boldly forward in
opposition to such a tyrannical encroachment on their religious liberty,
and manifested such a firm and determined spirit of resistance, that
Charles soon began to see, when too late, that he had drawn the reins
too tight. They would accept of no measure short of an entirely free and
unfettered Presbyterian form of worship, and a chain of events followed
which led to a renewal of the National Covenant and the abolition of
Episcopacy.
During these tumults, Rutherford ventured to leave the place of his
confinement in Aberdeen, and returned to his parishioners in Anwoth
about February 1638, after an absence of more than eighteen months. They
did not, however, long enjoy his ministrations, as we find him, in the
same year, actively engaged in Glasgow in forwarding the great
covenanted work of reformation. Rutherford was deputed one of the
commissioners from the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright to the famous General
Assembly of 1638, which was convened at Glasgow on the 21st of November.
He was called upon to give an account of the accusations which had been
preferred against him by the high commission court. After deliberation,
a sentence was passed in his favour, and he, along with some others who
were in the same circumstances, were recognised as members of the
Assembly, Soon after this, an application was made to the Assembly's
commission to have him transferred to Glasgow, and another by the
University of St. Andrews, that he might be elected professor of
divinity in the New College there. The commission appointed him to the
professorship in St. Andrews, as his learning and talents fully
qualified him for that important situation. He manifested, however,
great reluctance to leave Anwoth, and pleaded, in a petition, his
“bodily weakness and mental incapacity.” There were several other
petitions presented from the county of Galloway against his leaving
Anwoth, but to no effect; the Court sustained his appointment. In
October 1639, he removed to the scene of his future labours, and was
appointed colleague to Mr Robert Blair, one of the ministers of St.
Andrews.
Rutherford was nominated one of the commissioners to the General
Assembly of divines held at Westminster in 1643. His colleagues were —
Alexander Henderson, Robert Baillie, George Giilespie, and Robert
Douglas, ministers, — the Earl of Cassilis, Lord Maitland, (afterwards
Duke of Lauderdale,) and Sir Archibald Johnston, of Warriston, elders.
He took a prominent part in ail the discussions in that famous council,
and published several works of a controversial and practical nature.
About this time, he wrote his celebrated work entitled Lex Rex, in
answer to a treatise by John Maxwell, the excommunicated Bishop of Ross,
entitled “Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas,” or the sacred and royal
prerogative of Christian kings, wherein soveraigntie is, by Holy
Scripture, reverend antiquitie, and sound reason asserted,” 4to.,
Oxford, 1644. This work endeavours to prove, that the royal prerogative
of kingly authority is derived alone from God; and it demands an
absolute and passive obedience of the subject to the will of the
sovereign. The arguments in Lex Rex completely refute all the wild and
absurd notions which Maxwell's work contains, although some of the
sentiments would be thought rather democratical in modern times. The
author displays an intimate knowledge of the classics and the writings
of the ancient fathers and schoolmen. The work caused great sensation on
its appearance. Bishop Guthrie mentions, that every member of the
assembly “had in his hand that book lately published by Mr Samuel
Rutherford, which was so idolized, that whereas Buchanan's treatise (de
jure Regni apud Scotos) was looked upon as an oracle, this coming forth.
it was slighted as not anti-monarchical enough, and Rutherford's Lex Rex
only thought authentic.”
Rutherford, who was anxious to return to Scotland, on account of bad
health, had made an application to the Assembly for permission to leave;
but it was not granted till their business was finished, as his services
were very valuable to them; and it was not till 1647 that he was
permitted to revisit his native land. On his return to Scotland, he
resumed his labours in St. Andrews, and was in December of the same year
appointed Principal of the New College, in room of Dr Howie, who had
resigned on account of old age. In 1651 he was elected Rector of the
University, and was now placed in situations of the highest eminence to
which a clergyman of the Church of Scotland can be raised. The fame of
Rutherford as a scholar and divine, had now spread both at home and
abroad. In the Assembly of 1649, a motion was made, that he would be
removed to Edinburgh as Professor of Divinity in the University; and
about the same time he received a special invitation to occupy the chair
of Divinity and Hebrew in the University of Harderwyck ; and also
another from the University of Utrecht, both of which he respectfully
declined. He had too much regard for the interests of the Church of
Scotland to leave the kingdom, considering the critical position in
which it was at that time placed.
During the period which followed the death of Charles I. to the
restoration, Rutherford took an active part in the struggles of the
church in asserting her rights. Cromwell had in the meantime usurped the
throne, and independency held the sway in England. On the death of
Cromwell in 1658, measures were taken for the restoration of Charles II.
to the throne. The Scottish Parliament met in 1651, when the national
covenant was recalled — Presbyterianism abolished — and all the decrees
of Parliament since 1638, which sanctioned the Presbyterian system, were
rescinded. The rights of the people were thus torn from them — their
liberties trampled upon — and the whole period which followed, till the
martyrdom of Renwick in 1688, was a scene of intolerant persecution and
bloodshed. Rutherford, as may be supposed, did not escape persecution in
such a state of things. His work, Lex, Rex, was considered by the
government as “inveighing against monarchie and laying ground for
rebellion;” and ordered to be burned by the hand of the common hangman
at Edinburgh. It met with similar treatment at St Andrews, and also at
London; and a proclamation was issued, that every person in possession
of a copy, who did not deliver it up to the king's solicitor, should be
treated as an enemy to the government. Rutherford himself was deprived
of his offices both in the University and the Church, and his stipend
confiscated; he was ordered to confine himself within his own house, and
was summoned to appear before the Parliament at Edinburgh, to answer a
charge of high treason. It may be easily imagined what his fate would
have been had he lived to obey the mandate; but ere the time arrived he
was summoned to a far higher than an earthly tribunal. Not having a
strong constitution, and being possessed of an active mind, he had
evidently overworked himself in the share he took in the struggles and
controversies of the time. Although not an old man, his health had been
gradually declining for several years. His approaching dissolution he
viewed with Christian calmness and fortitude. A few weeks before his
death, he gave ample evidence of his faith and hope in the Gospel, by
the Testimony which he left behind him.[4] On his death-bed he was
cheered by the consolations of several Christian friends, and on the
20th of March 1661, in the sixty-first year of his age, he breathed his
last, in the full assurance and hope of eternal life. His last words
were, “Glory, glory, dwelleth in Emmanuel's land.”
On April 28th, 1842, the foundation-stone of a colossal monument, called
the “Rutherford Monument,” was laid to his memory; it is erected on the
farm of Boreland, in the parish of Anwoth, about half-a-mile from where
he used to preach. The monument is of granite; height, from the surface
to the apex, sixty feet; square of the pedestal, seven feet, with three
rows of steps.
Of the character of Rutherford — as to his talents and piety, nothing
need be here said. All who know his writings, will be at a loss whether
most to admire his learning and depth of reasoning; or his Christian
graces. We give the following list of his works, which is appended to a
memoir[5] by a talented gentleman of this city; a work compiled with
great research and discrimination, and which will amply repay a perusal
by all who feel an interest in the remembrance of an individual so
distinguished for learning; uprightness, and piety, as was SAMUEL
RUTHERFORD. — Exercitationes Apologeticæ pro Divina Gratia: Amst, 12
mo., 1636. A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbyterie in
Scotland: Lond., 4to., 1642. A Sermon preached to the Honourable House
of Commons, January 31, 1643, Daniel vi. 26: Lond., 4to., 1644. A Sermon
preached before the Honourable House of Lords, the 25th day of June
1645. Luke vii. 22-25. Mark iv. 38-40. Matt. viii. 26: Lond., 4to.,
1645. Lex, Rex; or the Law and the Prince; a discourse for the just
prerogative of king and people: Lond., 4to., 1644. The Due Right of
Presbyteries, or a Peaceable Plea for the government of the Church of
Scotland; Lond., 4to., 1644. The Tryal and Triumph of Faith: Lond.,
4to., 1645. The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication:
Lond., 4to., 1646. Christ Dying and Drawing to Himself: Lond., 4to.,
1647. A Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, opening the secrets of
Familisme and Antinomianisme: Lond., 1648. A Free Disputation against
Pretended Liberty of Conscience: Lond., 4to, 1649. The Last and Heavenly
Speeches, and Glorious Departure of John Gordoun, Viscount Kenmuir:
Edin., 4to., 1649. Disputatio Scholastica de Divina Providentia: Edin.,
4to, 1651. The Covenant of Life opened: Edin., 4to., 1655. A Survey of
the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline penned by Mr Thomas
Hooker: Lond., 4to., 1658. Influences of the Life of Grace: Lond., 4to.,
1659. Joshua Redivivus, or Mr Rutherford's Letters, in three parts:
12mo., 1664. Examen Arminianismi conscriptum et discipulis dictatum a
doctissimo clarissimoque viro, D. Samuele Rhetorjorte, SS. Theol. in
Academia Scottae Sanctandreana Doctore et Professore: Ultraj., 12mo.,
1668,
[1] Lives of the Westminster Divines.
[2] Crawford's History of the University.
[3] Stevenson's Church History, Vol. I.
[4] A Testimony left by Mr Samuel Rutherford to the Work of Reformation
in Great Britain and Ireland, before his death, 8vo.
[5] Life of Samuel Rutherford, by Thomas Murray, L.L.D. Edin., 1827.